The value of traditional three-year foreign assignments is being questioned
and staff are now more likely to be expected to uproot themselves at a
moment's notice

Executives looking to climb the corporate ladder should abandon their hopes of long-term deployments to foreign countries and instead be prepared to uproot for temporary assignments abroad.

Just a quarter of senior executives believe the typical three-year posting is still a business necessity, according to a KPMG survey designed to explore attitudes towards global mobility.

These business leaders also argue that less than one in seven younger entrants to the workplace view long-term international redeployments as a good career move.

“Increasingly the perks of long-term overseas placements are being replaced by shorter ‘parachute style’ projects, with employers expecting their key staff and future leaders to switch geographies without a second thought,” said Marc Burrows, partner and head of International Executive Services at KPMG.

“Where once the briefcase was a symbol of business, the suitcase is gradually becoming the accepted sign of career success,”

The survey of 200 staff at director level and above also found that almost two third of respondents believe that the length of foreign assignments could be reduced.

Although a three quarters of those quizzed expect to increase the proportion of staff they send abroad in the next five years, a fifth say that ease of travel and technological advances mean that long-term placements are no longer necessary.

Organisations are also concerned about losing talented staff as a result of them taking overseas positions. Just a third of respondents said their staff felt engaged whilst abroad, and 15pc said that extended amounts of time spent away from “home bases” comes up in exit interviews.

Exposure to foreign countries also has a major impact on organisations’ ability to plan for the future, with the survey revealing that 44pc of respondents admitted they lose up to 40pc of their staff within two years of an assignment ending.

Additionally, the full cost of sending people abroad is, in many cases, not fully appreciated, with a third of those questioned saying they need to improve understanding of the investments that are required, so that appropriate decisions can be made about who to send abroad, where, when and for how long.

Mr Burrows said: “Employees want to show that they are serious about the company they work for and will tolerate less enticing deals than those on offer a few years ago in return for future benefits and long-term career prospects.

“However, while international movement can open the door to a successful career, with senior jobs back at HQ the reward for individuals who have undertaken four or five overseas postings, there is a word of caution.”

He added: “Put simply, it is that companies switching to short-term, consecutive, assignment strategies risk creating nomadic workforces. Unintentionally, these individuals may fall under no specific control or supervision, becoming all but invisible to HR and line management.

“Unless properly managed, the result could be disaffected staff who feel the need to move elsewhere to be appreciated and to develop their careers. Clearly for the employer this means wasted costs, increased risk and hindered succession plans.”